Couple Sues Over Down Syndrome Misdiagnosis

[Atreus21]

Welcome to Amerika, where nothing is your fault, it can always be blamed on someone else!

Fuckin' A.

 

[Sunburn74]

Its sad that an outcome occurred which was not wanted. Honestly this is something I fear greatly myself. I don't think I could deal with raising a child with serious disability.

However, there are just a handful of tests in medicine that are 100 percent perfect. The majority of tests have a failure rate (ie false positive and false negative rates). What I find unusual though is that there are multiple ways to screen for down syndrome and its pretty pretty rare to not catch it in this day and age if you are REALLY looking for it. Case in point: the most common way to screen is via amniocentesis as discussed before, but parents typically get serial fetal ultrasounds and physical features of down syndrome can be detected that way too. For a child to get past chemical screening and physical screening is crazy rare and probably means it'll likely be a very mild case of down syndrome if there are no obvious physical defects.

Ultimately if you are really concerned about down syndrome to where an abortion would be an option you would use, CVS is probably your best shot with karyotyping to look directly for the abnormality.

 

[3chordcharlie]

You have never heard of the Baby Moses law? It allows just that. Drop the baby off at a fire station, police department or hospital and walk way, no questions asked.

A few months ago there was a 2 or 3 year old child dropped off at a fire department here in southeast Texas. The baby moses law is supposed to be for infants. The authorities did not try to find the parents, and the baby was put into the foster system.

I think I just found a solution to unwanted child support payments...

 

[TheVrolok]

Do you really think it's that easy?

Yes, it is.

Good thing Stephen Hawking's parents did not know he was going to be born so screwed up...

He was actually born quite well.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Do you really think it's that easy? Are the insurance company's defense attorneys supposed to flop over on the floor and not put up a convincing defense when the facts are on their side? Conversely, is it at all possible that doctors can be found not at fault when indeed they were at fault?

Happens every f'in day. It's called a settlement. Just like the majority of civil cases against corps, the insurance lawyers would rather just hand some 'shut-up' cash to the accuser, permanently add a demerit to the doc's record, and call it a day. The malpractice lawyers will also encourage the doc to settle too even if the doc is adamant about innocence.

 

[DCal430]

I read this story not to long ago, so it is actually a true story.

A woman Marys a man and has two kids with him, unknown to her he is keeping a secret about his father. His father died of Huntington's disease. After a few years he develops symptoms and the secret comes out. Upset she leaves him. Fast forward the two kids are now around 10 and 12 years old and have developed symptoms and have only a few more years to live. The medical bills for children while they are alive will be in the million of dollars. Should she be able to sue her ex husband because he kept this from her. If she had known the risk of having a child with him she never would have had them, she loves them but if she could turn back time she would not have them. Who wants to bring children in the world who will die young.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Happens every f'in day. It's called a settlement. Just like the majority of civil cases against corps, the insurance lawyers would rather just hand some 'shut-up' cash to the accuser, permanently add a demerit to the doc's record, and call it a day. The malpractice lawyers will also encourage the doc to settle too even if the doc is adamant about innocence.

If the plaintiff doesn't have much of a case, the settlement won't be very large. Oftentimes culpable and guilty parties will settle if they think that they will lose on the facts and the law. Not all defendants who settle are innocent or as pure as wind driven snow. You also have to wonder how the case survived motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment prior to settlement. There have to be some sorts of facts at issue that, if true, would impose legal liability before the case can even get to trial.

 

[Ninjahedge]

From first page:

The thing that is the hardest to swallow here is that stats are saying that malpractice suits (as well as other liability suits) are declining, yet insurance rates keep going up.

"Insurance" is such a scam.

 

[shira]

But the specimen used to perform the test is undoubtedly available. Whatever test was performed before can be repeated by a third-party lab. If it turns out that the sample clearly tests positive for Down syndrome, the plaintiff would have a pretty strong case.
Not necessarily.Not necessarily.

Not necessarily.

"Not necessarily" is pretty vague. In fact, "not necessarily" can be used as a true assertion to almost any statement.

So, do you mean my comment was 1% correct, 50% correct, 90% correct, or what? And what, specifically, are you thinking of?

I agree that there are almost always extenuating circumstances that can mitigate a strong claim of negligence. I was pointing out a likely scenario that would give the plaintiffs a strong case. Naturally there are exceptions. But if you're referring to a 1% scenario, it would have been more accurate to respond something like, "Correct in most, but not all, cases. For example . . ."

 

[shira]

Good thing Stephen Hawking's parents did not know he was going to be born so screwed up...

More random ignorance. Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making up stuff?

He wasn't born "screwed up." He started developing symptoms of ALS at the age of 21. And there are no genetic tests for ALS, either. It's not yet possible to determine who will get ALS and who won't.

However, if there WERE such tests available, it would be entirely rational to test for ALS and abort fetuses with the condition.

As to your implied point that aborting a fetus might prevent someone like Stephen Hawking from being born, it might instead prevent someone like Adolph Hitler from being born.

Checkmate.

 

[DCal430]

More random ignorance. Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making up stuff?

He wasn't born "screwed up." He started developing symptoms of ALS at the age of 21. And there are no genetic tests for ALS, either. It's not yet possible to determine who will get ALS and who won't.

However, if there WERE such tests available, it would be entirely rational to test for ALS and abort fetuses with the condition.

As to your implied point that aborting a fetus might prevent someone like Stephen Hawking from being born, it might instead prevent someone like Adolph Hitler from being born.

Checkmate.

The recent story of the 9 year old girl who died from Huntingtons Disease, their is actually a prenatal test for this. Should her parents have aborted her, would she have been better off never born?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Tort reform!

 

[Ninjahedge]

BTW, Steven was not born with that disability. It hit him later and has been degenerating him for a long time now. So it has little to do with pre-natal (at least in this instance).

 

[dyna]

It would have been worse if they aborted and then realized later the baby was healthy. Despite the results of the test, the decision is up to the parents.

 

[SirStev0]

The recent story of the 9 year old girl who died from Huntingtons Disease, their is actually a prenatal test for this. Should her parents have aborted her, would she have been better off never born?

Probably. Huntington's is one of the most horrible, painful and absolutely excruciating ways to die. If she died so young she probably had a very advanced form due to anticipation of the mutated gene.

Huntington's is one of the examples of disease that gets significantly worse with each generation. The form your great grandfather had was much less severe than the form his son and his son's son had and exponentially worse for you.

I would not wish any disease on a family, but Huntington's is definitely one of the worst to wish upon a family. Genetic Counseling for it must be incredibly difficult, especially since the first generation to be diagnosed is usually in their 50's, meaning they probably have children who will develop it at a younger age and possible grandchildren who will have it at an even younger age.

And all of them will go through such pain and suffering that I guarantee you have no reasonable ability to comprehend.
So maybe next time choose a better exhibit for your poorly backed argument.

 

[airdata]

Seems to me this has a simple solution. Just pass a law that says doctors aren't allowed to misdiagnose. That works for everything else.

It's not a mis-diagnoses.

It's simply a test. My wife and I forgoe having one... How could you live with yourself if you had your child killed for being disabled?

They need to stfu and be happy with whatever social security benefits they'll receive for the child as is.

It would have been worse if they aborted and then realized later the baby was healthy. Despite the results of the test, the decision is up to the parents.

Yeah, that would be horrible.

 

[TheVrolok]

..

Agreed. Great ep of Law and Order:SVU on right now about a mercy killing of a Tay Sachs baby. Thought provoking.

 

[SirStev0]

Agreed. Great ep of Law and Order:SVU on right now about a mercy killing of a Tay Sachs baby. Thought provoking.

Honestly, Americans are probably too ignorant to even try to understand such a complex issue. You know... Death Squads and other nonsense.

Really trying to explain these things is exhausting.

 

[TheVrolok]

Honestly, Americans are probably too ignorant to even try to understand such a complex issue. You know... Death Squads and other nonsense.

Really trying to explain these things is exhausting.

And let's be honest, no one wants to waste time/money/effort on education; that would just be silly.

 

[SirStev0]

And let's be honest, no one wants to waste time/money/effort on education; that would just be silly.

Again, they just don't care. Why form a well reasoned opinion when you can just go on whatever opinion syncs best with your gut reaction or what your political talking head tells you.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Guys, it's a bit unfair to lump this all on Americans.

Humans, by definition, are stupid. All you have to do is look at this forum and realize that it represents a bunch of ABOVE AVERAGE people and you will get my drift.

Somehow we all seem to think we are smart, but no so much smarter than the average person that such idiocy is possible.

the only difference between American Stupidity and, lets say English Stupidity is the accent.

(and the teeth...... *wark*)

 

[MovingTarget]

Came across this article and thought it would make a good topic for discussion.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/03/02/couple-sues-over-down-syndrome-misdiagnosis/

In short, hospital misdiagnosis down syndrome fetus during prenatal screening. The hospital assured the parents the child would not be born with down syndrome.

Child is born with down syndrome.

Parents are suing hospital.

Should hospitals be held to the reliability of the test they preform?

A couple of years ago I remember reading about a how a pap smear was misread and cancer cells were overlooked. The lady went back a year or so later for her next pap smear only to find out she had had cancer. If the lab had caught the cancer a year earlier the lady might have lived. In its advanced state, I think the cancer was terminal and she died.

Whos responsibility is it when lab reports are wrong? Should the hospital have to foot the bill for the down syndrome child?

It all depends on the severity/nature of the error. If it was an honest mistake and all proper procedures were followed, then thats just the nature of things. These things happen. If the lab were grossly negligent, then yes, they should be held accountable for negligent practice. If a doctor intentionally lies to a patient (such as many are proposing with prenatal testing to reduce the number of abortions), then that doctor's practice should have to foot the bill for any and all related expenses for the kid.

 

[Kadarin]

No. They shouldn't.

Yes, they should. And... They do.

 

[Sunburn74]

It's not a mis-diagnoses.

It's simply a test. My wife and I forgoe having one... How could you live with yourself if you had your child killed for being disabled?

They need to stfu and be happy with whatever social security benefits they'll receive for the child as is.




Yeah, that would be horrible.

I have no problem with aborting fetuses to reduce the incidence of disease and disability in society. There is no reason for EVERY SINGLE FERTILIZED EGG HAS TO MAKE IT TO PARTUM. Be merciful and give your children every possible advantage you can give them in life.

 

[Attic]

Should they be able to sue, sure. Not that I agree with that action or what it implies about this couples character, though that is an extremely difficult situation for these two.

I'm surprised they won the suit.